I am asking this from a language design point of view. So I am trying to find out
- What is the rationale for the behavior of
this? - To what degree the behavior of
thiswas a mistake, or could be improved upon?
To clarify why I'm uneasy about this, consider this example:
var a = {};
a.f = function(){ return this; }
var f = a.f;
// f() != a.f()
Note how easily the object to which f() belong is lost: separated from a, this becomes the global object (window for browsers).
Now consider:
var newA = function(){
var self = {};
self.f = function(){ return self; }
return self;
}
var a = newA();
var f = a.f;
// f() == a.f() !
Without using this at all, we are able to establish and maintain the object context regardless of where or how the method is used. I can't help but think that, with the power that closures provide, this becomes superfluous, and perhaps even a little dangerous...
I'm not on some vendetta against this, or looking to start an argument; I'm merely trying to better understand it. I do appreciate that 'this' can be useful, but recognize that it can be confusing as well... Certainly confusing to beginners, and perhaps to experts as well in sufficiently obscure cases.
And yet, it remains a heavily-used and seemingly well-respected part of the language, in a time when other core aspects of the language seem fair game for shunning (i.e., Crockford and with or new). What am I missing then, that makes this indispensable?
-
- It wasn't
- Lots of OO stuff
- It's good the way it is
mike g : Ok. Would you mind giving examples of what OO stuff is not possible?rix0rrr : This is a very unhelpful answer, since the author is stating opinion as fact without backing up with reasoning or examples. -1svinto : mike g: making public functions rix0rr: it's quite hard to back with facts as the other side doesn't provide anyannakata : @rixOrr: the *question* was stating opinion as fact as well -
- It should be called 'self' instead
- Anything that refers to current objects state.
- By choosing 'self' as the name for 'this', and passing it explicitly (as the first argument) to all methods. This way you can easy tell instance method from static method or from function.
Sorry, but I really like Python ;-)
Patrick McDonald : I think it should be called Me ;)Abgan : Whoa, someone doesn't have sense of humour? Downvoting for 'this'?Ionuț G. Stan : You forgot to mention that you want 'self' passed as a first argument to a method instead of having implicitly access to it.Abgan : @Ionug G. Stan: True. Updating my answer to reflect thatannakata : I think you'll find that self is ripe for abuse. Should've been "that"artificialidiot : This answer would fit proggit very nicely. -
I think unbound "this" is a mistake. Otherwise it is quite handy. Unbound "this" opens the possibility of misinterpreting the context most prominently apparent in event handling of browsers. Also javascript libraries have different opinions of what "this" should refer to in event handling and many callback constructs (like map, filter).
Removing unbound "this" probably wouldn't make things any more difficult.
Edit: I guess an alternative syntax example will make my stance clearer.
function Foo() { //both this refer to the Foo instance this.blah=this.function(){this.bar;}; //second this refers to baz this.blah=baz.function(){this.bar;}; //second this refers to anonymous function itself this.blah=function(){this.bar;}; } -
I don't think making "this" unbound was a mistake. It can sometimes be confusing at first, but there are good reasons for the way it is. The first one that comes to mind is that, since JavaScript is not a class based language, functions are not associated with any specific class, so there's not a consistent way to automatically bind "this" to the correct object instance. For example,
function Person(first, last, age) { this.firstName = first; this.lastName = last; this.age = age; } Person.prototype.getFullName = function() { return this.firstName + " " + this.lastName; };"this" needs to refer to a Person object, but the function assigned to Person.prototype.getName doesn't have any way of knowing how it's going to be used, so "this" needs to be bound to whatever object it is called on.
Where this causes a problem, is when you have nested functions.
// This is a really contrived example, but I can't think of anything better Person.prototype.getInfo = function() { // get name as "Last, First" function getNameLastFirst() { // oops. "this" is the global object, *not* the Person return this.lastName + ", " + this.firstName; } // expect something like "Crumley, Matthew: Age 25", // but you get "undefined, undefined: Age 25" return getNameFirstLast() + ": Age " + this.age; };The syntax artificialidiot suggested would be convenient, but it's pretty easy to bind "this" to a specific object using apply:
function bind(func, obj) { return function() { return func.apply(obj, arguments); }; } Person.prototype.getInfo = function() { // get name as "Last, First" var getNameLastFirst = bind(function () { return this.lastName + ", " + this.firstName; }, this); return getNameFirstLast() + ": Age " + this.age; };or the more "traditional" method using closures:
Person.prototype.getInfo = function() { var self = this; // get name as "Last, First" function getNameLastFirst() { return self.lastName + ", " + self.firstName; } return getNameFirstLast() + ": Age " + this.age; }; -
I think the unbound 'this' keyword is necessary because JavaScript is a prototype-based language. Someone better informed can probably fill in the details here.
The fact that it is, is mightily unhelpful though. Especially if you want to pass the method of an object to a higher-order function, things start to get ugly (following examples with a little help from MooTools):
myArray.each(myObject.foo);Will not work, because the 'this' in myObject.foo will refer to myArray instead of myObject. Instead:
myArray.each(myObject.foo.bind(myObject))Which seems very ugly to me. That's why I usually don't program in an object-oriented way in JavaScript, but I rely heavily on closures instead.
-
Consider the idiom
a.f()as a shorthand for:a.f.call(a);It's by definition a call to the function
f, using scopea.var f = a.f; f(); // f.call(this); a.f(); // f.call(a);If
thisandaare not the same object,f()anda.f()will use different scopes and therefore may behave differently. Consider the distinction between static and class methods in other languages:class Foo { public: static void a(Foo *scope) { // do something with given scope }; void b() { a(this); // do something with the scope of this object }; }; Foo foo; Foo bar; foo.a(&bar) != foo.b(); // just like f() != a.f() foo.a(&foo) == foo.b(); // just like f.call(a) == a.f() -
You seem to be expecting this to behave as it does in certain OO languages, where it always refers to the object a method belongs to.
But in JavaScript, a function can be attached to multiple objects, or no object at all. In your example, you've written a function intended to be used in the context of one specific object... But nothing prevents me from taking that function and attaching it to any other object. That's just the nature of the language - functions are first-class, object membership is optional.
Therefore, this refers to the context in which a function is called. Right now, that's either an arbitrary object (specified via
.,.apply, or.call()) or the global object. In future versions of the language, it will refer to the context in which the function was defined: the global object for global functions, the outerthisfor inner functions; you can view this as a correction of a design flaw, as in practice being able to refer to the global object using this was not particularly useful.
